[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18658-18664]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                   QUALITY OF LIFE IN OUR ENVIRONMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cannon). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) 
is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I certainly join my colleagues in 
wishing our friend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) well.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend a few moments this evening 
discussing elements that deal with our quality of life in our 
environment.
  After a seemingly interminable and preliminary process which has been 
seemingly going on since the last elections 2 years ago, we are now 
entering into the political home stretch.
  As the candidates move past the debate on debate and the skirmishing 
that occurs here on Capitol Hill about budgets and health care, there 
is an overarching theme that is yet to be comprehensively addressed, 
the livability of our communities and the role the Federal Government 
can play in making our families safe, healthy, and economically secure.
  The long-term implications for the environment have raised many areas 
of concern for citizens across the country. I find that it is 
interesting that it is not just a concern for college towns or for 
traditional urban centers. We find that these are very significant 
issues in areas like the mountain States of Colorado and Arizona and 
Utah.
  People have been facing development and fear the situation is going 
to deteriorate overtime. I would like to take this opportunity this 
evening to discuss some of those items in greater detail.
  But I would like to begin, if I may, by yielding to the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), the delegate from the 
District of Columbia. She, I think, has perhaps one of the most 
difficult challenges that any of us face, representing the District 
without a vote, without Senate colleagues, and facing some of the very 
difficult environmental and development issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
(Ms. Norton) to elaborate on some of her concerns.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer) for yielding to me.
  That is a most generous gesture and in keeping with the special 
attention he has devoted to the capital of the United States. He joins 
us in so many activities that we share in common with his own 
constituents.
  I want to particularly thank him for joining our bike ride just the 
other day where we are trying to work with his livability caucus to 
make the Nation's capital more livable for people who walk and ride and 
run.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I cannot let the 
occasion pass without congratulating the gentlewoman on leading the 
pack of some 3,500 cyclists just 2 weekends ago and a marvelous 
experience for so many people from the Metropolitan area, not just from 
the District of Columbia.
  I did want to point out that tomorrow morning, again with the 
cooperation of the office of the gentlewoman, the bicycle caucus is 
going to have a tour of the south waterfront redevelopment and we will 
be leaving at 7:30 from the Rayburn horseshoe to be able to combine 
some bicycle work with understanding some of the development challenges 
that are being faced by the District.

                              {time}  1800

  Ms. NORTON. Indeed so. We invite Members to join us. I will be riding 
in my skirt because I have a hearing right afterwards. I thank the 
gentleman for helping us show off our waterfront which we are trying to 
get in better shape.
  I thought I would come to the floor, and I appreciate the opportunity 
that the gentleman from Oregon has given me, to give a status report to 
Members on important developments in the District of Columbia. I try to 
give a status report every so often. This is an important time to do so 
because it is the appropriation period.
  There are new Members here who perhaps think they have been having an 
out-of-body experience because they have had to vote on the floor on a 
local city's budget, on a budget raised in the District of Columbia. 
No, that is the way they do it here. They should not do it anywhere. 
Some of you have been local legislators. You would never abide that in 
your district. If I could get out of it, I would. I think that there is 
going to come a time very soon when there will be ways to modify the 
present system.
  I wanted, though, to begin by thanking the chairman of the District 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), and the vice 
chair, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), for going with me 
to the Committee on Rules last week to ask for the return of the vote 
to the District of Columbia that was retracted along with the votes of 
the other delegates when the Republicans took the majority. As a 
constitutional lawyer, I had written a memorandum that showed that even 
as I had the full vote in committees, I could have it in the Committee 
of the Whole, the creation of the rules of the House, the Democrats 
were in power then, by a vote I had won it. The Republicans sued us and 
both the District Court and the Court of Appeals indicated that this 
was constitutional.
  When the vote was retracted through the rules, there were a 
considerable number of Republicans who came up to me and said that at 
least for the District of Columbia, which is third per capita in 
Federal income taxes, if we had been severed, they would have voted to 
retain the vote of the District. The fact that Chairman Davis and Vice 
Chair Morella went with me to plead for the return of the vote for the 
District I think indicates that we are dealing here with a matter above 
political considerations, not bipartisan but nonpartisan; but because 
we are talking about the vote, my single vote cannot make a difference, 
particularly since the rules require a revote if the delegate's vote 
makes the difference. Of course no one vote makes the difference very 
often. There cannot be half a dozen times in the session when that 
occurs. Nothing is lost by the Republican majority should they retain 
the majority. Everything is gained for my residents who still are 
smarting under the notion that anybody would take the vote while 
accepting their Federal income taxes.
  There are other reasons as well. Uniquely, this body assumes the 
privilege of voting on my local budget; yet I have to stand there with 
no vote on the amendments as I had when I had the vote in the Committee 
of the Whole, and of course there is the unique requirement that every 
law passed by the local city council come here to lay over and perhaps 
to be overturned. So in the name of the half million tax-paying 
Americans I represent, I ask that my vote be retained, and I appreciate 
the bipartisan support I have for that proposition.
  Let me say just a word about the District itself. Its basic health 
needs to be reported to this body because this body saw the District go 
down in 1995. Since then, there have been 4 years of balanced budgets 
plus surpluses. The District came into balance 2 years ahead of the 
congressional mandate. The control board is sunsetting. Next year's 
CAFR will report a balanced budget. That signals the end of the control 
board. At the same time the city council has revived its oversight 
functions so that it is now a full functioning city council with all of 
the vigilance that this body, for example, has over Federal agencies, 
keeping the new reform mayor on the reform path.
  Finally, the school board, which is perhaps where the Congress has 
had its

[[Page 18659]]

greatest concern, has itself also been reformed by vote of the 
residents of the District. We have a new superintendent that was 
superintendent in Montgomery County, one of the leading school 
districts in the country, who is now our superintendent. The former 
superintendent, Arlene Ackerman, did so well in the District that she 
was recruited away by San Francisco. She took our scores up 2 years 
running, instituted all manner of reforms including a summer program 
not only for remediation but to help students get ahead. Our police 
department is doing extraordinarily well in what has been a 
particularly high crime city. We have had double-digit drops in crime 
for 2 years now.
  Most of my colleagues know and have enormous respect for our 
management-oriented mayor, the new mayor of the District of Columbia, 
Anthony Williams. You have perhaps read of the management plans he has 
in place which holds managers to goals which are publicized to the 
entire city so that people can see whether or not these managers are 
meeting their goals.
  One agency has been in the paper recently, the foster care agency. I 
am pleased that the majority whip, Tom DeLay, a national advocate for 
children, himself a foster parent, was concerned about the fact that 
the foster care agency is in disarray. Note, though, that that agency 
is in receivership. Mr. DeLay has joined Chairman Tom Davis and me in 
calling for the return of that agency from the Federal courts to the 
mayor of the District of Columbia because he has shown that he knows 
how to reform an agency and the receivership has not done the job.
  Finally, I want to thank the Congress for the tax credits and 
incentives that it voted in 1997, which are already having an enormous 
effect in reviving the economy of the District of Columbia. Just today, 
Senator Connie Mack and I have an op-ed piece in the Washington Post 
where we call upon the Senate and the House to make citywide these 
D.C.-only tax credits and incentives which are reviving the private 
economy of the District of Columbia and have contributed invaluably to 
the revival of the District itself. Because the District has no State 
to fall back on, it needs special incentives of some kind; and we 
prefer private sector incentives, because we are trying to develop a 
stable economy that depends upon no one but ourselves and our own 
businesses.
  The D.C. residential and business credits have had phenomenal success 
in the many communities in which they are found. But not every 
community has had the benefit of these tax incentives. The result is 
that there are businesses that have the incentives on one side of the 
street and on the other side of the street they do not, or competitors 
have them and their competitors do not. That is because this is a 
small, compact city, and you cannot divide it up the way you can 
Chicago or New York or L.A. into districts with some getting it and 
some not getting it without having terrifically adverse effects. The 
effect here has been to unintentionally discriminate against some 
communities.
  What Senator Mack, who has been extraordinarily helpful to this city, 
wonderfully attentive to our economy, and I ask is that the proven 
success of these tax credits and benefits make the Congress decide to 
make them citywide. They are a tax-exempt bonding authority, for 
example, which means that we have what most cities have had for a long 
time, and that is tax bonding authority for profit-making businesses. 
We only had it for tax-exempt institutions before. Now there is $100 
million of private investment in the city because of the tax-exempt 
bonding. It is paying for itself over and over again.
  The best example is the $5,000 homebuyer credit. It is the only one 
of the tax incentives Congress passed in 1997 that was citywide, and 
look what has happened. We have turned around the extraordinary exit of 
middle-class homeowners from the city. Seventy percent of those who 
bought in the city said they bought because of the $5,000 homebuyer 
credit which allows you to get $5,000 off of your Federal income taxes 
if you buy a home in the District. We want that to be the case for the 
tax-exempt incentives as well.
  Finally, let me thank the Congress once again for the 1997 tax 
credits and incentives that have boosted the city's private economy. In 
one or another of the tax measures coming out of the House, we expect 
these tax credits to perhaps become citywide, and I ask for Members' 
support for that measure.
  Let me thank, once again, those who have supported me to get the vote 
back for the tax-paying residents of the District. I ask whoever 
becomes the majority to at that time give the District back the vote it 
lost when the Republican majority assumed power here in the Congress. I 
think that it would be a most fitting way for the Congress to say to 
the District, which has blossomed back from the depths of insolvency 
into now a thriving city, ``Job well done.''
  I thank the gentleman for yielding to me so that I might give the 
Members of the House this progress report on the Nation's capital.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I again commend the gentlewoman for her valiant 
efforts in terms of promoting the environment and livability of our 
Nation's capital. I think she is doing a job on behalf of all of us, 
because we all have a stake in the success of Washington, D.C.
  I would like to return, Mr. Speaker, to focus for a few moments about 
the environment and what difference it is going to make in the election 
this fall. We are now facing the issue of what candidate and which 
political party will do the best job. It is very clear that the 
Republican ticket, even though not currently in office on the national 
level, does in fact have an environmental record. Former Representative 
Cheney, when he was in the House for almost 13 years, compiled a 
lifetime voting record on environmental issues of 13 percent, one of 
the worst in that period of time. Likewise, Governor Bush in his two 
terms now as governor of Texas has an environmental record. Where is 
his leadership dealing with the fact that Texas puts more chemicals in 
the air than any other State and by most rankings is the State with the 
worst toxin level in the atmosphere? Were Texas a country, it would be 
the world's seventh largest national emitter of carbon dioxide.
  The largest problem is the dangerous amount of nitrogen oxide which 
mixes with the exhaust vehicles to create ozone and smog. And under the 
leadership of Governor Bush, in 1999 Houston surpassed Los Angeles as 
the country's smoggiest city. Texas had the Nation's 25 highest ozone 
measurements and 90 percent of the Nation's readings deemed very 
unhealthy by the EPA.
  This summer, while Los Angeles has posted eight more days of 
unhealthy ozone than its Texas rival, Houston's worst smog was dirtier 
than any in Southern California according to air quality officials. 
Since Bush took office, the number of days when Texas cities have 
exceeded Federal ozone standards have doubled. Houston and Dallas 
currently face Federal deadlines to make sharp cuts in air pollution or 
risk losing Federal transportation money.

                              {time}  1815

  At the same time that Texas environmental conditions are reaching a 
crisis point, cities such as Charlotte, North Carolina and Salt Lake 
City have managed to absorb growth while improving their air quality. 
The Bush administration claims that growth, not governance is the 
reason for the State's appalling air quality. It is hogwash. Rather the 
State's environmental record perhaps best underscores what a Bush 
Presidency would mean for our Nation's air, water, streams and for 
forested area. Virtually no support for growth management, no 
commitment to improving the air or water quality, no protection for 
environmental resources.
  Consider the impact of the Republican governor in terms of who he has 
appointed to run the State's environmental agencies. All of the Texas 
natural resources conservation commissioners have backgrounds in 
industry. The same industrialists who are the generous contributor to 
the Bush Presidential campaign.

[[Page 18660]]

  He is fond of saying you cannot regulate or sue your way to clean 
air, clean water. Yet, consider the results of his environmental 
centerpiece, rather than forcing the worst polluting industrial plants 
in the State, those grandfathered into the State's clean air policy, 
that currently contribute 36 percent of the chemicals Texas released in 
the atmosphere, Bush has worked out a program with the industrialists, 
a voluntary cleanup.
  After 2\1/2\ years, the scheme has produced only 30 of 461 plants not 
already facing Federal restrictions to comply with environmental 
guidelines. Together these 30 plants reduce grandfathered emissions by 
only 3 percent. Should Vice President Al Gore and the American public 
push Bush on these issues, George W. may feel like the disobedient son 
haunted by his father's words. I recall in 1988 George Bush, Sr. went 
to Boston Harbor and attacked the environmental record of his opponent 
Michael Dukakis, saying my opponent has said he will do for America 
what he has done for Massachusetts, that is what I fear for my country. 
That has an ominous ring as it relates to George Bush's leadership in 
Texas.
  I would yield to my colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) a few moments 
to elaborate on these elements.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) 
for yielding to me for this opportunity to join him in this special 
order discussion of environmental issues affecting the year 2000 
campaign, especially the Presidential race.
  First I want to commend the gentleman and compliment him for the 
leadership role he has assumed here in Congress regarding a whole host 
of environmental issues, but especially the sustainable development 
issue that is sweeping across the country and that large and small 
communities, urban and rural, have to contend with now on an ever-
growing basis of how they can grow and manage the growth in a 
sustainable way so that they all enjoy livable communities.
  In fact, the gentleman is the founder of the Sustainable Development 
Caucus that has formed in the House of Representatives and I am a proud 
member of, and the gentleman brings in a lot of experts and speakers in 
order to enlighten Members of Congress on how Federal policy can 
sometimes adversely affect the sustainable development goals of our 
communities back home, and what we can do then to change that course of 
action, and how we can assist our communities back home through the 
dissemination of information and ideas on their sustainable development 
goals.
  And the gentleman has really elevated that issue on the national 
plane, and I commend you for all of your hard work in that regard and 
look forward to working with the gentleman on that in the future.
  I just want to take a few moments to talk about why I am supporting 
and why I think the Gore-Lieberman ticket is a strong ticket and the 
right ticket to go with for the next 8 years in this country. I had an 
opportunity now as a member of the new Democratic coalition of working 
both with Vice President Gore and Senator Lieberman on a whole host of 
issues, and there are not two people who are more committed to 
environmental issues and sustainable development issues, the impact 
that it has on our country, than Vice President Gore and Senator 
Lieberman.
  Mr. Speaker, both of them realize and understand that we can have 
sustainable economic growth in this country without jeopardizing the 
environment at the same time, and both of them has shown an incredible 
amount of leadership and courage at this time on this very issue. In 
fact, I had the pleasure of traveling back with both the Gores and 
Liebermans the day after the convention in LA so that they could start 
their general election campaign in my hometown in La Crosse, Wisconsin, 
which is a beautiful area in western Wisconsin situated right on the 
banks of America's river, the Mississippi River.
  There was a tremendous crowd and rally waiting for them at La Crosse 
that launched them on their general election campaign, and we all 
boarded the Mark Twain Riverboat that we took then down the 
Mississippi, and given that my congressional district has more miles 
that border the Mississippi River than any other congressional district 
in the Nation, I felt a certain moral responsibility to assume 
leadership on issues that affect the Mississippi River Basin.
  So I helped form a bipartisan Mississippi River caucus, and this was 
a great opportunity for me to talk to both Al Gore and Joe Lieberman in 
regards to the importance of that river basin, the Mississippi, through 
the heartland of our country, and some of the programs and projects 
that we have working on it, and both of them were very impressed and 
very supportive with the number of projects that affect the river 
basin, the sustainability, trying to preserve and protect it for future 
generations, one of which is the environmental management program for 
the Mississippi River.
  This is a program set up through the U.S. geological survey that has 
long-term resource monitoring and data collection, also habitat 
restoration projects in the upper-Mississippi basin that the Corps of 
Engineers helps us on, in order to deal with the adverse effects that 
growth and development have had on this important river system.
  It has received tremendous amount of support within the Clinton-Gore 
administration and also from Senator Lieberman. But I have also 
introduced a bill that we are trying to work through Congress right 
now; I had a chance to talk to both of them on it. It is the Upper 
Mississippi River Basin Conservation Act. And it is a very simple bill 
with the overall goal of trying to reduce the amount of sedimentation 
and nutrients that flow into the river basin.
  I had a chance to speak at length with Al Gore about this legislation 
especially as we are drifting down the Mississippi River. He said this 
is something right in line with his own environmental philosophical 
beliefs and a direction we need to go on when it comes to environmental 
policy. And to accomplish the reduction of sediments and nutrients 
flowing into the basin and resulting in back bays being filled up and 
the destruction of wetlands, we would implement, again, through the 
U.S. Geological Survey, a comprehensive scientific monitoring and 
modeling program, so we can identify where the hot spots are, better 
direct our limited resources to get the most optimal effect on the 
investment in order to combat some of these challenges that the river 
basin faces.
  We also build upon existing land conservation programs that come out 
of the USDA so that farmers can participate in good land stewardship 
programs that are voluntary and incentive based because we understand 
they are going to be a crucial component partnership in trying to 
reduce the sediment and nutrient flows into this river basin. And there 
are some very good programs that we are relying upon in order to 
accomplish our objective, one of which is the conservation reservation 
program.
  This is a program out of USDA that allows farmers to take land out of 
tillage and out of use, especially land that could lead to erosion 
problems and, therefore, water management problems in the area. This is 
a program that Vice President Gore has been a staunch proponent of, 
understanding that it is a voluntary incentive-based program for 
farmers to participate in.
  Mr. Speaker, it helps them with the reliable steady income stream for 
those who are able to enroll in CRP, and I believe that as we shape the 
next farm bill, this is a direction we need to be going in in regards 
to foreign policy, rather than passing a multiple billion dollar farm 
relief package. If we can have a more reliable sustainable farm support 
through land conservation programs, this would help our family farmers 
during a very difficult period when we have historically low commodity 
prices. Milk prices now are looking at a 20, 30 year low. These are 
popular programs that our farmers are asking for expansion and more of.
  Unfortunately, Governor Bush has come out in strict opposition to the 
conservation reserve program. I do not know why, since it is widely 
popular

[[Page 18661]]

within the agriculture community and with family farmers because of the 
win-win situation that it creates, good land stewardship, good land 
conservation programs, which help drinking water supplies and watershed 
areas.
  I think that is a distinct difference for people to judge the various 
tickets in this year's fall campaign, a tremendous difference that I 
think is going to have an impact throughout rural America of what 
party, what administration is going to be supportive of this direction 
in agriculture policies.
  I mean those are just a couple of reasons why I think again, Gore-
Lieberman is the strongest ticket when it comes to environmental issues 
and environmental policy. One that I know that we would be able to work 
successfully with in the next 8 years during the administration, 
because again they recognize that good environmental stewardship should 
not be a partisan issue.
  Unfortunately, all too often the debates and the programs that we 
support come down along party lines, and it should not have to be that 
way. I mean, we see what the polling numbers show. The national and 
local polls of how popular good environmental programs are to the 
people back home. And so for a Bush-Cheney ticket to kind of offhand 
discount some very important land conservation programs that our 
farmers can benefit from, I think is an issue that should be out there 
and will become more and more a part of this Presidential campaign.
  But again, I thank my friend from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 
allowing me to share a few minutes with him tonight during this special 
order. I commend the gentleman for the leadership role that he has 
taken here in the United States Congress on the sustainable development 
issues, the bike caucus that he helped form as well to encourage 
alternative modes of transportation, given the congestion problem that 
we face here in the District itself. And I do look forward to working 
with him in the future on these important programs.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for joining us and 
the gentleman is too modest. As the gentleman is leaving us, I want to 
express my deep appreciation for the leadership that the gentleman has 
shown on a whole range of issues with the Mississippi River Valley.
  When we had the week-long expose in The Washington Post dealing with 
concerns, serious concerns about management of the environmental issues 
in terms of Congress' behavior, I was proud that there were numerous 
references to the gentleman's insightful reform legislation that he has 
introduced well in advance of the current controversy to try and 
depoliticize, to make more transparent and to allow the public to be 
involved with these critical issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor with the gentleman of his 
legislation and look forward to working with him hopefully maybe even 
in this session to achieve that reform, but certainly in the next 
Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Farr), who has served as a mentor to me in my 
brief tenure in Congress to understand how Congress can be a better 
partner with the environment, including a report that he issued today 
on the steps of the Capitol.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for yielding the time to me and, Mr. Speaker, 
for you allowing us to have this time and this discussion. As the 
gentleman stated, I am a Congressman from California. California is 
very proud of being a State that is dealing with a lot of issues on the 
environment.
  I mean, the fact of the matter is that California has such a diverse 
geography, a geography that is noted by its forests in the north and 
its deserts in the south, by its magnificent Sierra Nevadas on the east 
and its incredible coast line on the west. And in that diversity of 
geography, lives 33 million people, the most multicultured democracy on 
the face of the Earth.
  And California is a testing area for the globe, not only for our 
Nation. It is a State that has learned that you cannot take care of the 
people unless you take care of the land. And we have developed in 
California a very extensive way of addressing the impacts of people in 
the land through zoning process and master planning that cities and 
counties must do. General plans that are in great detail.
  And what has this evolved into. It has evolved into the most 
successful economic State in the United States. An economy that ranks 
7th in the world in gross national product. What it tells my colleagues 
is that there is indeed a correlation between the economy and the 
environment. We cannot grow the specialty crops that we grow in the 
Salinas Valley in the central part of California anywhere else in the 
world, because we have a climate that is dependent on clean air, clean 
water, a coastal fog belt climate that has a temperature that allows us 
to grow 85 different crops in just Monterey County alone, that is more 
than any other crops that any other States in the United States gross.

                              {time}  1830

  We have an economy in California that flourishes with tourists who 
come to the State, attracted by its scenic wonders, by the Yosemites, 
by the San Francisco Bay, by the Marine Worlds, by the ocean, Big Sur, 
and the list goes on and on.
  What I am bringing all this up to is that I am very, very worried 
that the national direction of local control and State control of 
environmental effects could change with the new administration. We look 
at what is happening in this Congress, take air, for example. Vice 
President Gore went to Tokyo to participate in the debate on global 
warming. There was no debate that there was global warming. There was 
debate on what to do about it. There were protocols laid out which 
request the industrialized nations to take the lead because, one, they 
have more information; two, they have more technology; and, three, they 
have the ability to think outside the box and lead countries that are 
less developed.
  We developed those protocols and each country is supposed to go back 
and check about it. Well, the Republican-controlled Congress here has 
put riders in saying, and this is really something and I think it is 
shocking, it is essentially a gag order that says nobody, nobody in the 
Federal Government, can go out and discuss anything about the Kyoto 
Accords until the treaty is ratified in the United States Senate. They 
cannot even have discussions. They cannot even share ideas. They cannot 
go anywhere else in the globe.
  If one sees the documentaries that are coming out, this is a concern 
that countries all over the world are raising, and they are asking for 
the United States to help in trying to understand what they can do 
about it; and we are gagged, we are bound, we are ordered that we 
cannot do that. We cannot even talk about it.
  You wonder, as you see the governor of Texas running for President of 
the United States, and leadership is about results, and the question 
is, what are the results that you have accomplished while you have been 
in elective roles. Here is the governor of the State of Texas that 
comes out with the worst air in the cities of Texas, in Houston in 
particular, and the problem with Houston is because they have no 
zoning, they have no general plan, they have no requirement. It has 
become the biggest urban sprawl city in America, more sprawled out than 
Los Angeles. When you get into urban sprawl, you get into an area that 
the gentleman knows so much about, one cannot build effective 
transportation systems.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Reclaiming my time for a moment, one of the things 
that has struck me about the leadership of Governor Bush is how 
negative it has been towards cities in Texas that are actually trying 
to solve the problems. This actually occurred, this was reported in the 
Austin American Statesman reporting that when growth-deluged City of 
Austin moved to regulate development and water quality, Bush approved 
State legislation to negate all its effects. So while talking about 
local control and turning things back, when communities in

[[Page 18662]]

Texas, and Austin is a terrific town, they are struggling with 
significant growth, has actually tried to move ahead, Governor Bush was 
not there supporting them, urging them on.
  In fact, he approved legislation that stripped away the powers that 
they wanted to try and solve it dealing specifically with what the 
gentleman said.
  Mr. FARR of California. Well, I think that is my point, and the point 
is that leadership is about getting results. We are into an election-
year mode. We all know what is going on in this country, and if we 
watch the people, it is so easy at this time of the year, this time of 
elections, to listen to people complain. It is easy to criticize. It is 
easy to find fault. It is easy to be negative. It is very difficult in 
the political arena, in a bipartisan fashion, to forge something that 
can be signed into law and that can be instrumental in helping solve 
the problem. That is the measure of leadership, is what kind of results 
are you getting. To do nothing is not a result, particularly when it is 
dealing with how do you clean up the air, how do you clean up the 
water, how do you clean up the oceans, how do you make transportation 
more accessible, affordable and certainly less congestive.
  If it is just complaining about it, it is not getting results.
  So I am really worried because I see a potential for an 
administration to come in here to usurp the kind of local and State 
controls that we have had in law and instead of working with them 
essentially being in opposition to them. In order to solve water 
problems in America, we are going to have to actually be more 
conservative. We are going to have to conserve more water. That means 
we have to waste less water.
  Now, do we have to build water facilities? Yes, but we do not have to 
build them as big as dam builders would say they have to be built or as 
many as they say have tobe built. There are compromises here, but the 
compromise, first of all, is using less, wasting less, recycling more.
  In land use, we cannot solve our problems in land use by just 
allowing cities to go out, particularly in areas where there are prime 
agricultural lands. In California, this is our biggest struggle, urban 
sprawl. Everybody needs housing. It is so easy to just go out and pave 
over the orchard, pave over the lettuce field, pave over the cattle 
grazing area. Then you have houses spread all out. And guess where all 
the jobs are? Downtown. Tough commute into town and all of a sudden you 
are now creating air pollution, and you have created an unsolvable 
problem.
  How do you do that? You look around to cities that have grown up 
around this world; you look to Europe which has had cities a lot longer 
than the United States and guess what? Some of those cities are still 
absolutely gorgeous cities because they put urban limit lines on them 
and said you are going to grow up rather than grow out; you are going 
to use space better downtown than you have used it; you are going to 
bring people back into the urban area; you are going to live in 
densities that are attractive, that are architectural in planning; you 
are going to use land, you are going to use resources appropriately.
  Agricultural preservation means you have to make sure that the 
agricultural land cannot be converted to real estate. You do that by 
not selling to development. The owner owns this, this is a free market 
system, a willing seller says, look, I would like my land taxes 
reduced. I would like to have my inheritance taxes reduced. I am 
willing to sell you the development rights on this land and then the 
land, no matter who inherits it or buys it, will only be able to do 
agriculture on it. That is wise. That is wise use. We have done that in 
most of our communities. We have zoned areas saying you can only have a 
building of a certain height; or you live in a residential area, you do 
not buy a house saying I am buying this house today so that I can tear 
it down tomorrow to build a factory on it or to build a gas station on 
it. Neighborhoods would never allow that to occur.
  So we need to treat our precious agricultural land just as 
respectfully as we treat our residential land, and we need to know 
where one begins and the other ends; transportation, quality of life 
issues.
  Lastly, I would just like to say that I represent an area that has 
learned that the ocean is our new frontier. We have all said here on 
the floor of the Congress that we know more about the Moon and Mars 
than we know about our own oceans. That is a huge exploration 
responsibility. One of the things we have tried to say in California 
is, look, our coastline is our largest economic engine. It is where our 
commercial tourism, it is where our dependence on boats getting in and 
out of harbors, it is an area where disasters, such as oil spills, 
could ruin the coastal economy, the number one zone of economy in 
California.
  What we are really worried about is that we could have the next 
President of the United States, the governor of Texas, if he were the 
President, he could sign an executive order lifting the moratorium on 
offshore oil drilling that we hailed and applauded President Clinton 
and Vice President Al Gore in deciding when they came to the first 
Oceans Conference in Monterey Bay. This administration made a statement 
that they thought the oceans were important enough that we really ought 
to commitment a long-term agenda to understanding the conflicts of the 
sea, to understanding the resources of the sea, and to understanding 
how we can appropriately manage those.
  In doing that, the President said we do not need to drill this oil 
right now. It has been here for millions of years, and it can be here 
for a long time before we have to drill it because we can allow 
technology to catch up, we can allow less reliance on oil to catch up. 
Guess what? He did that by executive order and that same pen could 
unchange that if it were in the hands of a President who was pro-oil, 
who is very involved in allowing gulf oil to be developed. That would 
ruin the coast of California.
  So I am very, very worried that the record of the candidate, of the 
governor of Texas, on the environmental issues, could literally destroy 
the green economy that California has so successfully built up. I bring 
that record to the floor tonight with a real element of concern. I 
appreciate the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for yielding his 
time to me to make that statement.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Farr) for his comments, and I must commend his leadership. I had 
the pleasure of attending that first National Oceans Conference in the 
beautiful district of the gentleman 2 years ago. It was a very 
inspirational event. It brought people together. Great things have come 
from it. Of course, the gentleman was the inspiration for the President 
with another stroke of the pen, with the California Coastal National 
Monument. I commend the leadership of the gentleman and his vision, and 
I appreciate him joining me this evening.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the item that frustrates me the most is not the 
governor of Texas' poor environmental record, lack of leadership; but 
it is the lack of perception and passion about protecting the 
environment that I personally find most disturbing. It seems to a 
casual observer at least that he seems unaware of Texas' serious 
environmental problems. Where is his outrage and his concern being 
expressed that under his leadership Houston has become the city with 
the Nation's worst air quality?
  This environmental indifference, if combined with the typical 
Republican leadership that we have seen in Congress in the last 6 
years, could be disastrous. I want to talk about that in a moment, but 
first I guess it is important to also reference that there is another 
branch of government that is going to be in flux as a result of the 
outcome of this election, because every 2 or 3 years on average a 
Supreme Court Justice is appointed. There have been no justices 
appointed the last 6 years. It is very likely that the next President 
will be appointing more than one justice, probably 2, 3, 4, in the next 
4-year term alone.

[[Page 18663]]

  Governor Bush has indicated that from his perspective, Justice Scalia 
and Justice Thomas would be the models for his Supreme Court 
appointments. I think a cursory review, even a cursory review of their 
judicial decisions indicates why that could potentially be a disaster 
for the environment. But the Supreme Court is only the tip of the 
iceberg, because the next President will be appointing hundreds of 
Federal district and circuit court judges.
  Now, these are the men and women who make decisions every day in the 
various circuits that impact the day-to-day activities of Americans. In 
many cases, these are the decisions that stand, that are never 
reviewed, that determine the outcomes. Of course, the judiciary on the 
district and circuit court level has been sort of the farm club, the 
bench for future higher appointments. It would be, I think, unfortunate 
if we were to have an approach such as has been indicated by Governor 
Bush as his model.
  I also mentioned the other branch of government, the legislative 
branch, because here too there are significant differences that are 
offered to the American public. It has been the Democratic 
administration that time and time again has beaten back destructive 
environmental riders, vetoed legislation that was overreaching, and has 
been a part of constructive negotiations to be able to protect and 
enhance the environment and hold the line here in Congress.
  If you look at the ratings by the people whose job it is to advocate 
for us on the environment, one of the best is the League of 
Conservation Voters. They have for years been compiling a nonpartisan 
assessment of legislative voting records. They break these records out 
looking at the House and the Senate and the Republicans and the 
Democrats.
  The difference between the two parties is stark. If we look at just 
the leadership of the environmental committees alone, in the Senate the 
party average for the Republicans is 13; for the Democrats it is 76 
percent, but for the average leadership the chairman of the Senate 
Republicans are actually even worse, scoring a bare 9 percent.
  If we look at the House of Representatives, it is even more stark. 
The average for Republicans is 16 percent; for the Democrats the 
average is 78. But if you look at the leadership of the committees that 
deal with the environment, the average for the chairs of the Republican 
members is 1 percent.

                              {time}  1845

  Of the 5, there was one, according to the League of Conservation 
Voters, 1 was 6 percent, the others had 0. Yet, for the democratic 
Ranking Members, the people who stand to ascend to the chairmanships, 
the average is 69 percent.
  If we look at the House and Senate leadership, overall, the average 
leadership in the Senate was 0 for the Senate leaders, and in the 
House, it was 4 percent. The democratic leadership was 86 percent in 
the House, even more environmentally sensitive than the party average 
of 78 percent, but basically, more than 6 times more environmentally 
sensitive and friendly, according to the evaluation of the League of 
Conservation Voters.
  Mr. Speaker, this has manifestations as it deals with actual policy 
impact. I listened with some frustration earlier this evening as one of 
my colleagues, the gentleman from Florida, attempted to take to task 
the Democrats in the administration dealing with energy policy. I 
thought for a moment, my goodness. What is the energy policy that has 
been given to us by the Republicans?
  For example, the Bush-Cheney ticket would be drilling in the ANWAR, 
in the Arctic Reserve, destroying forever this pristine, what has been 
described as the Serengeti of the Arctic, and there are a few month's 
supply of energy. This is something that the American public opposes by 
a 3-to-1 margin which the Republicans in Congress have been advocating, 
but a democratic administration has been resisting.
  I look at the difference that has been proposed by my friends in 
Congress from the Republican side of the aisle, because it has not been 
very long ago that they had no energy alternatives; that, in fact, the 
Republican administrations in the 1980s cut back energy research and 
development by billions of dollars for alternative energy sources.
  In 1995, when the Republicans took control of both the House and the 
Senate, they once again started the attack that was begun by the Reagan 
administration. Their first efforts were to cut energy efficiency 
programs 26 percent; $1.117 billion in fiscal year 1995 was cut to $840 
million. The Committee on the Budget report for fiscal year 1997 
actually recommended abolishing the Department of Energy. Think of 
that: abolishing the Federal agency to work in this area, and further 
proposed cutting energy conservation programs 62 percent over 5 years. 
In these total 5 years, the Republicans have slashed funding for solar, 
renewables, and conservation funding by a total of over one and a third 
billion dollars below the Clinton administration requests.
  Furthermore, the Republicans have cut programs like the Weather 
Assistance Program beginning in 1995 when they cut it by 50 percent. 
Even now, in the middle of the energy emergency that we have been 
looking at over the course of the last 6 months, the Republicans are, 
in fact, asleep at the switch. Last spring, in the middle of the gas 
price crisis, number one, the Republicans were ready to, or they were 
flirting with having the President's authority to protect our economy 
by using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve expire. In 1999, the 
Republicans rejected an Energy Department proposal to buy $100 million 
of crude oil, or nearly 10 million barrels of crude at that time of 
record-low prices to build up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that 
could have been used during a situation such as we are facing here.
  It took the House Republicans nearly a year to recognize that rising 
fuel prices were a national problem. They last looked at oil prices in 
March of 1999 and then held only the second hearing in March of 2000. 
There was nothing for a year from the people who control Congress.
  Now, despite overwhelming evidence throughout 1999 and early 2000 
that prices of gas, diesel and home heating oil were on the rise, House 
Republicans failed to hold even a single hearing or make a single 
proposal on stabilizing fuel prices, and throughout this period, they 
took no steps to invest in America's energy independence and economic 
security. But, in 1999, and I recall this well, the Republican leaders 
called again for the elimination of the Department of Energy and 
selling off the petroleum reserve.
  Specifically, in April and May of last year, after OPEC's production 
cuts started a rise in prices, Republican leaders, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Armey), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) joined the Republican budget chair 
and 34 other Republicans to introduce H.R. 1649, the Department of 
Energy Abolition Act. I think the collected memory of my friends on the 
Republican side when they attempt to criticize the Democrats in 
Congress, who are not in control, or the efforts of the democratic 
administration to do something about it is shortsighted, to say the 
very least.
  The Armey-DeLay energy bill would have eliminated the Energy 
Department and with it, oil conservation programs, renewable energy 
conservation research; it took energy policy out of the cabinet and 
sold off the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the Navy's petroleum 
reserve. Such foresight. How much better off would we be today if we 
had adopted their reckless proposal?
  Another ironic example for me of the Republicans dropping the ball is 
when the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of 
the House Committee on Science held hearings in 1996 that attacked the 
Department of Energy's information administration for ``Consistently 
overestimating the price of oil and using these `inflated predictions' 
to justify increases in conservation research and development 
programs.'' The subcommittee chairman criticized the Department of 
Energy officials for predicting an oil crisis that could be

[[Page 18664]]

caused by increased demand, increased imports, or instability in the 
Persian Gulf. The projections that drew that Republican chairman's 
criticism predicted that in the year 2000, the price per barrel of 
imported oil could be as high as $34, and to that Republican 
subcommittee chair, that was outrageous. I note for the record that as 
of March 7 in the year 2000, the price was $34.13.
  Mr. Speaker, every day in America communities large and small are 
struggling with issues that define their environment, their 
liveability, their quality of life. Some people suggest that there is 
no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, but I will 
tell my colleagues when it comes to the environment, the reality is 
stark. The Democrats in this administration and in Congress have a 
positive record of support and accomplishment, of sympathy and passion. 
The Republican ticket offers indifferent voting records, cursory 
performance in office, and advocacy of dangerous, even reckless, 
environmental policies. Our air, our water, the landscape, our precious 
natural resources do not have the time to survive benign neglect or 
malicious indifference, let alone active assault. There is a huge 
difference between the parties, perhaps on the environment more than 
any other issue. The stakes of the election for the environment could 
not be higher. I hope that the American public will look closely at the 
records and promote policies and candidates that will make our 
communities more livable and our families safer, healthier, and more 
economically secure.

                          ____________________